Dude no one is actually talking to AFB on this list. If I were I
wouldn't have told him the Mac would kick his butt, I would have
showed him. Besides that I understand your point and it is well taken.
On May 21, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Chris Blouch wrote:
Pretty simple. In lieu of compelling evidence or solid logical
proof, the argument goes to the articulate. Profane language is
customarily the antithesis of lucid debate and it is often assumed
to be a last gasp technique in the same class as bullying and
shouting. So if you want to stack the deck against yourself and your
viewpoint, feel free to spout a blue streak. If you want to win even
if your facts are a bit shaky then be professional or even funny.
I'd much rather consider a funny wrong viewpoint than a profane
right one.
Just my experience of about, oh, 20 years or so of email, USENet,
bulletin boards and such and the joys of flamewars thereof.
CB
James Austin wrote:
Good point David. If we use language such as I have seen on some
posts, then it goes some way to proving the reviewers' stance - if
Mac folks resort to bad language, then VO cannot be as good as they
are claiming because they are littering their arguments with such
language as opposed to pointing out where VO is more u useful to us
etc.
Just my point of view - sorry for any offense caused
Best wishes
james
